If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Roger, I'm tracking. I know that the regs changed for off post guns. They did not have to register them if off post. As for on post, I guess it's better than nothing. I'd still take my chances off post with my own firepower.

Yes, but if they are on post, then they don't have their own firepower. The Provost Marshall needs to have round the clock protective details on them. They are a huge target.

Yes, but if they are on post, then they don't have their own firepower. The Provost Marshall needs to have round the clock protective details on them. They are a huge target.

The Army leadership loves them some control, a whole lot more than it does results or individual liberty. Which can become a problem if you have a personal stake in the results, or the individual liberty concerned.

Civilians are being killed all the time in these wars. Suddenly it's horrifying because a soldier killed some without the proper permission?

Of course most civilian deaths are simply brushed off because they are "collateral damage" in an otherwise "legitimate operation". Do the Afghans care? If a dozen women and children are killed in 'collateral damage' during a strike, do the Afghans think that's totally cool because the foreign occupying military was looking for a bad guy? Come on. When a bomb drops and kills an innocent family, the survivors aren't going to just smile and say "I understand, there were rumors that an insurgent was here". They're more likely to become insurgents themselves.

Why is occupying a foreign country and causing thousands of civilians deaths A-Okay, until some guy decides to go renegade and stop the evil Muslims without clearance? It's a ridiculous mindset that deaths are nothing to think twice about, as long as you follow the "rules" while you do it.

Something is seriously wrong when a person is willing to take the firmest possible stand against murder, but War is acceptable.

As for the idea that this soldier may have had psychological problems? No shit sherlock. How can you have a decade of continuous war with some people on multiple redeployments without psychological problems. At that point it's not even abnormal psychology it's expected psychology. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote “It is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98 percent of all men insane, and the other 2 percent were crazy when they go there.”

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

-snip-
War perverts and destroys you. It pushes you closer and closer to your own annihilation—spiritual, emotional and finally physical. It destroys the continuity of life, tearing apart all systems—economic, social, environmental and political—that sustain us as human beings. In war, we deform ourselves, our essence. We give up individual conscience—maybe even consciousness—for contagion of the crowd, the rush of patriotism, the belief that we must stand together as a nation in moments of extremity. To make a moral choice, to defy war’s enticement, can in the culture of war be self-destructive. The essence of war is death. Taste enough of war and you come to believe that the Stoics were right: We will, in the end, all consume ourselves in a vast conflagration.

A World War II study determined that, after 60 days of continuous combat, 98 percent of all surviving soldiers will have become psychiatric casualties. A common trait among the remaining 2 percent was a predisposition toward having “aggressive psychopathic personalities.” Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in his book “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society,” notes: “It is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98 percent of all men insane, and the other 2 percent were crazy when they go there.”
-snip-

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Civilians are being killed all the time in these wars. Suddenly it's horrifying because a soldier killed some without the proper permission?

Yes, it is. Because we aren't barbarians. I realize that it flatters you to think of us that way, but we fight to protect non-combatants, not to deliberately put them in harm's way.

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei

Of course most civilian deaths are simply brushed off because they are "collateral damage" in an otherwise "legitimate operation". Do the Afghans care? If a dozen women and children are killed in 'collateral damage' during a strike, do the Afghans think that's totally cool because the foreign occupying military was looking for a bad guy? Come on. When a bomb drops and kills an innocent family, the survivors aren't going to just smile and say "I understand, there were rumors that an insurgent was here". They're more likely to become insurgents themselves.

Collateral damage isn't brushed off. We investigate every incident and people go to jail for failing to prevent civilian casualties.

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei

Why is occupying a foreign country and causing thousands of civilians deaths A-Okay, until some guy decides to go renegade and stop the evil Muslims without clearance? It's a ridiculous mindset that deaths are nothing to think twice about, as long as you follow the "rules" while you do it.

It would be a ridiculous mindset, but it isn't ours. We occupied Afghanistan because they harbored Bin Laden, who used it as a base from which to kill 3,000 Americans.

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei

Something is seriously wrong when a person is willing to take the firmest possible stand against murder, but War is acceptable.

Again, you flatter yourself by denigrating us.

Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei

As for the idea that this soldier may have had psychological problems? No shit sherlock. How can you have a decade of continuous war with some people on multiple redeployments without psychological problems. At that point it's not even abnormal psychology it's expected psychology. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote “It is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98 percent of all men insane, and the other 2 percent were crazy when they go there.”

If this were true, then there would be far more incidents like this, but out of over 50,000 troops who have more than four deployments, only one has committed this kind of atrocity. Clearly, this argument doesn't hold water in the face of the facts, but does present you with an opportunity to show us your morally superior stance. You can stop now. We've heard it before and it's not impressive. You have to have a chest before you can thump it.

Chris Hedges? Really? Did you think that we wouldn't remember him? He was the crank who ruined the Rockford College graduation ceremony in 2003 in order to spew a bigoted tirade against the US and Israel, resulting in his being booed off the stage and his subsequent removal from the NY Times. He went from the far-left Times to the farthest-left magazine, The Nation. He has zero credibility on this or any other subject, but by presenting this leftist hack as a war correspondent and omitting his history, you demonstrated why you have zero credibility, too.

Chris Hedges? Really? Did you think that we wouldn't remember him? He was the crank who ruined the Rockford College graduation ceremony in 2003 in order to spew a bigoted tirade against the US and Israel, resulting in his being booed off the stage and his subsequent removal from the NY Times. He went from the far-left Times to the farthest-left magazine, The Nation. He has zero credibility on this or any other subject, but by presenting this leftist hack as a war correspondent and omitting his history, you demonstrated why you have zero credibility, too.

Chris Hedges? Really? Did you think that we wouldn't remember him? He was the crank who ruined the Rockford College graduation ceremony in 2003 in order to spew a bigoted tirade against the US and Israel, resulting in his being booed off the stage and his subsequent removal from the NY Times. He went from the far-left Times to the farthest-left magazine, The Nation. He has zero credibility on this or any other subject, but by presenting this leftist hack as a war correspondent and omitting his history, you demonstrated why you have zero credibility, too.

Leftist hack is being kind. Hedges now plies his hatred at such credible "news" outlets as Alternet...CommonDreams...and AdBusters (the folks behind OWS)...going back to just writing for those terrorist loving sycophants at The Nation would be an upgrade for his credibility.

Chris Hedges? Really? Did you think that we wouldn't remember him? He was the crank who ruined the Rockford College graduation ceremony in 2003 in order to spew a bigoted tirade against the US and Israel, resulting in his being booed off the stage and his subsequent removal from the NY Times. He went from the far-left Times to the farthest-left magazine, The Nation. He has zero credibility on this or any other subject, but by presenting this leftist hack as a war correspondent and omitting his history, you demonstrated why you have zero credibility, too.

Calling him a leftist doesn't address a single point he makes.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.